Saturday, October 27, 2012

Now, I was aware that the man had a twisted side to him, but it is really rather remarkable to see John Scalzi so openly admit on his blog that he has raped women:

"I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have." - John Scalzi, 25 October 2012

I wonder if the SFWA will be concerned that their current president is an admitted rapist or if they'll take the approach towards him that NOW and the other feminist groups did towards Bill Clinton. Of course, unlike Scalzi, Clinton never admitted to being a rapist.

Wait, he claims his confession is satire? Well, that might fool anyone unfamiliar with the concept of blown cover as cover. But even if we were to take him at his word to not take him at his word, where is the satire? Satire is supposed to be ironic, but where is the irony? What is being exaggerated? Given that a) one-third of all forcible rapists are black, and, b) blacks heavily support the Democratic party while whites are fairly evenly split, the statistics indicate that it is very nearly twice as likely a rapist would be inclined to write a fan letter to a Democratic politician rather than to a conservative Republican politician. This isn't irony, this is pseudo-ironic left-liberal fantasy.

Perhaps the satire is to be found in Scalzi's implication that living human beings created without consent of the mother do not merit any of the legal protections and rights afforded all other human beings. That must be it! After all, the assertion that certain classes of homo sapiens sapiens are defined as not human isn't merely a scientifically absurd proposition, but one historically known to be lethally dangerous.

I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have.

Hi, my name is Gravity.

I'm a rapist. I’m one of those forces of physics who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them asexually. The details of how I do this based on acceleration are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about "forcible reference frame gravity" or "legitimate gravity" because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have. When women try to do things like, jump from a tall building, I like to control them and flex my power.

We are ruled by these kinds of extremes in all things. We upended 1/7th of the economy, throwing millions off health insurance they liked to ostensibly help a small population of the uninsurable. We endure genital groping at airports because, well, there was a failed underwear bomber some years back, and better safe than free. We were supposed to endure 100 years of reduced economic activity and freedom to prevent centimeters of sea level increases, and would have without Anonymous. We bleed wealth on foreign energy because of the China Syndrome. No wonder the curse of a dead civilization is to have women like Scalzi rule over us by emotion while the men die abroad and the child The One oppresses us.

I do so love when the liberals toss out the "rape is about control" chestnut, when they've expanded their intended definition of rape to the point that they have. It's right up there with "A woman would never lie about this" in terms of its accuracy.

After all, the assertion that certain classes of homo sapiens sapiens are defined as not human

Not to get pedantic Vox, but when using binomial nomenclature, the genus is capitalized, and the species lowercase. Then italicize or underline the whole thing. Example: The common apple is Malus domestica. This has a subspecies as well, which is also lowercase in the trinomen as Homo sapiens sapiens.

It's ironic how this 'revelation' and the assumption that goes along with it that women just Don't want to be brutalized and or sexually battered comes after last night I had an in depth conversation with a woman about the proper technique for choking someone, and how she particularly enjoying being slapped hard across the face. It seems maybe Scalzi burning himself at the stake for what he views women as disliking (taking them at their word) is basically like dousing himself with pussy repellant.

"I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force my [Writing] on [People] without their consent or desire and then batter th[eir sense of taste]. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control [readers] and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have." - John Scalzi, 25 October 2012

Why do you guys read that loser? I've read him once in the last five years or so. If he's still the same flaming buttcrusty he was when he was spamming the childfree sites, then you are willfully choosing the fuzzy end of the lollipop every time you read him. Makes no sense. It's like people who read Krugman and blow a gasket every time they see the flame-broiled idiocy within his columns. They remind me of the people in Monty Python who walk around beating themselves in the head with boards.

Perhaps the satire is to be found in Scalzi's implication that living human beings created without consent of the mother do not merit any of the legal protections and rights afforded all other human beings. That must be it! After all, the assertion that certain classes of homo sapiens sapiens are defined as not human isn't merely a scientifically absurd proposition, but one historically known to be lethally dangerous. VD

A reader is moved to reply and takes up the subject:

iholdtheline says:October 25, 2012 at 6:41 pm

I respect your opinion, Mr. Scalzi. Looking at your argument a few times, however, caused me to see one fatal flaw in your argument; the assumption that the baby is the woman’s.

I understand my opinion is exceedingly unpopular with pro-choice people and even unpopular with some pro-life people. That being said, I feel I have to stand up for the truth. Yes, the woman is carrying it and, yes, she had not intended to do so. But in all cases, whether the woman was raped or simply does not desire to have a child, it is her duty as a human being to give the human she is carrying a chance for life. That baby is not hers; that baby is its own self. To shut the door on his or her chance for life is so garishly wrong.

Yes, it might be hard for the woman. But no matter what, the woman should ALWAYS have a right to her own body. That extends to every person, in fact. All people have a right to their own bodies. That is why those humans the woman carries have a right to not be killed. Any arguments about it not actually “killing” someone, because it is not yet a person are void in this; assuming the pregnancy goes well, that thing in the woman’s womb will eventually become a person.

P.S. I don’t usually like to engage in discussions on the internet, but I felt like I had to say something here. On many other things we seem to agree, but I think in this case you couldn’t be more mistaken.

I expect to be eaten by trolls.

Scalzi's lame reply, ignoring the main point, of course:

John Scalzi says:October 25, 2012 at 6:48 pm

iholdtheline:

“the assumption that the baby is the woman’s”

The article isn’t about the baby. It’s about the woman. Immediately trying to make it about the baby is implicitly an attempt to get around the woman and the rights she has to control her own body.

Also, no, it’s not the woman’s “duty” to do anything other than what she chooses to do of her own accord when it comes to pregnancy. To suggest otherwise is to maintain that a woman has not other use and no other choice, than as a breeding receptacle.

The satire is found in Scalzi's reply, as VD said, only it not by implication but plainly stated.

How, exactly, do the lot of you trim your neckbeards? You're disgusting misogynists who couldn't get a clue if it was shoved up your ass, forcibly or otherwise.

I love the smell of impotent rage in the thread. It smells like this:

It hurt. The experience was almost more than I could bear. I begged him to stop. Afraid he would kill me, I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn’t care that I was a Malcolm X scholar. He told me to shut up, and then slapped me in the face. Overpowered, I gave up fighting halfway through the night.

Accepting the helplessness of my situation, I chucked aside the Haiti bracelet I had worn so proudly for over a year, along with it, my dreams of human liberation. Someone, I told myself, would always be bigger and stronger than me. As a woman, my place in life had been ascribed from birth. A Chinese proverb says that “women are like the grass, meant to be stepped on.” The thought comforted me at the same time that it made me cringe.

It's barely an "article". It's a bit of puff-story that largely aims to twist emotional knives rather than reason about anything. That's why bringing up the actual infant is devastating to the goal - suddenly, the whole story gets a lot more complicated, and 'complicated' is what Scalzi is running away from. The moment you think about the story and examine it with reason, it falls apart. His solution: make damn sure you don't think about it or examine it at all.

I keep running into this with people, typically people of liberal political leaning. You ask them for an argument and they tell you a dramatic story, and that is literally supposed to be the end of it. 'Wasn't my story sad? Heart-wrenching? Shocking? Well then, now you should agree with my view on this political matter.' If you question the logic or the reasoning beneath the story, then you're angrily informed that you should NOT be doing that.

I recently resubscribed to Asimov's SF mag, after a long (over 20 year) absence. What is the first story in this month's issue (well, Jan 2013 issue - it arrived yesterday)? It's about two sisters making their way across a treacherous post-apocalyptic Earth, looking for the one female doctor who will give the younger sister an abortion. And they have to hide from the occupying aliens who forbid abortion (they transport you to a hospital to give birth, but then are never heard from again). Before they left their home they had to suffer the judgment of a male church-going friend. I am not kidding. And no, I have never felt a greater waste of my money.

Congratulations on the birth of your child. I'm a father too. It's awesome.

You said "I'd like to just beat the crap out of anyone who would even think that it would have been OK to kill her yesterday."

Since "choice" is all about the pregnant woman (and no one else) having the choice, this means that, since the opinion of the mother of your child is the only opinion that should matter, you're implicitly in favor of beating the crap out of the her. (If she disagrees with you.)

I do hope that you discussed this issue with the child's mother prior to getting her pregnant, and knew that she was in agreement with you. If so, bravo and congratulations. If not, you've just reinforced Scalzi's point about the desire to control women's bodies.

I do hope that you discussed this issue with the child's mother prior to getting her pregnant, and knew that she was in agreement with you. If so, bravo and congratulations. If not, you've just reinforced Scalzi's point about the desire to control women's bodies.

Hey anon, why don't you go to Afghanistan or Pakistan and preach your views about "control" of women's bodies, because there is far more actual control of women's bodies going on in those countries?

Satire? Perhaps. Similar to Savile and his house of horrors perhaps Sca has a fetish he simply couldn't contain within himself.

Long ago I sensed he was capable to throwing some blood in the water for attention, help or even confessions...But really, Sca isn't strong enough or man enough to dominate any woman. We'll wait and read for the reactions from the blogsdasphere

Anonymous, Your'e an ass. The entire question of "choice" turns on the humanity of the child. If the mother can arbitrarily abort the baby then either the baby is not a member of humanity yet or there is no unique value to human life in general and we are all vulnerable to the same arbitrary execution. There is no point after conception where one can discern a distinct dividing line between non-human tissue and a suddenly human baby. There is less difference between a baby at 3 months gestation and a newborn than there is between a newborn and a 20 yr old woman and yet we don't condone the killing of newborns. They are all humans at different stages of life developement but still humans none the less. The right of the baby to live for the short time when it is dependent on the mother's body trumps the mother's convenience or whatever else she claims justifies the abortion. When do you believe the baby becomes a human worthy of legal protection in its own right right? Please explain this in a consistent manner.

"Since "choice" is all about the pregnant woman (and no one else) having the choice, this means that, since the opinion of the mother of your child is the only opinion that should matter, you're implicitly in favor of beating the crap out of the her. (If she disagrees with you.)"For the record, a woman who gets far enough along in her pregnancy to feel the child moving and still decides to have a doctor dismember the child while still alive (aka abortion) fully deserves to get the crap beat out of her. I say this as a woman currently 5 months pregnant.

oregon mouse: "a woman who gets far enough along in her pregnancy to feel the child moving and still decides to have a doctor dismember the child while still alive (aka abortion) fully deserves to get the crap beat out of her"

You're specifying a mechanism instead of an end. Some women, terribile dictu, like a beating.

There are many annoying things about Scalzi but perhaps most annoying is his posing as an exemplar of civility.

You go on his site and read a satire the whole point of which is to let his fellow travellers know it's ok to ignore the arguments of those that oppose rape exemptions because, whatever they may say, they are motivated by a psychological affinity with rapists. Then after you finish reading this vile smear and click on the comments the first thing you see is Scalzi piously instructing you on the high standards of conduct one is expected to adhere to in his rarefied comment section.

I cant stand this hermaphrodite debate style where he tries to be a dick and a pussy simultaneously. Either own your hackness or have the courage to debate people for real.

More specifically, it was and is about white gentile population reduction."

Very true. Very, very true. But when it comes to abortion, I admit I have mixed feelings. Non-whites practice abortion (Yay!) and DWLs do as well (Yay!). But so do whites who should not. But in a somewhat related story, I was pleased to hear of the killer nanny in NYC. Put a smile on my face. The only problem is that she didn't off the parents or herself.

Congratulations on your pregnancy. I hope it proceeds uneventfully, and leads to a healthy newborn.

"For the record, a woman who gets far enough along in her pregnancy to feel the child moving and still decides to have a doctor dismember the child while still alive (aka abortion) fully deserves to get the crap beat out of her."

No, there does not. But by all means, please explain what the link between Astrosmith and a rapist would be even if Astrosmith was defending the unborn child from the prospective mother carrying that child.

The link would be: both Astrosmith and the rapist are trying to control the body of the prospective mother. They almost certainly have different motivations for doing so, and certainly Astrosmith would not characterize his action in that way, but that is the effect of both of their actions.

(Let's remember: Astrosmith is theoretically beating the crap out of the prospective mother under this scenario.)

As far as casting the first stone, in this society we punish people for killing children. We tend to see individuals who purposely hurt the most defenseless of us as worthy of our anger and disgust. I do have some empathy for the women I know who have been pushed into abortions. Our society failed them. They failed themselves. There are obviously many reasons why a woman may choose to abort but she is still killing a living person no matter why she does it. Under what circumstances is a woman's control over her own body no longer absolute? Certainly I'm still enslaved to my helpless infant well after its born. If I decide I no longer want to be enslaved I can't just abandon my child in a ditch. I can't smother it with a pillow. Legally I must ensure the child's safety until I can unload my burden on someone else however long that may take. How is this different than requiring a woman to carry her unborn child through gestation to live birth? You still dodged my direct question. When is an unborn baby a person and why do you draw the dividing line at this point?

Here is the thing folks, There is no reason to bother to post her about any type of discussion on this topic, there is no discussion going on here. What we have here is folks who are declairing their petty insecurities and stupidity. Here is a simple fact. For every SINGLE person out there, who in there own hypocritical way loudly proclaims RIGHT TO LIFE, every single one of you would gladly vote the death penalty for the same soul in it's future. For every one of you assholes who would force a woman to give birth and raise a child of rape, absolutly none of you fuckers would take that same child into your homes and raise it your self. So VOX baby, it's easy to sit here in your little electronic chair and masterbate all over the article that John Scalzi produced. It is easy for tiny dick little fucks like your self to tear down somthing. Try once to come up with an origional idea. Shit guy, why don't you come up with a cause that you and your fellow mouth breathers can actually get off of your asses and DO SOMTHING ABOUT. Or is all that you people can do is run your little petty poisonous pens?I know this is a streach, but why don't some of you hearty Crusaders git off of your ass and look into C.A.S.A. (Court Appointed Special Adfocates for Kids) Take a hard look at the REAL world and what kids are up against. Or is it easier to eat your Doritos, play big mouth on the computer, and do nothing.Dave

The Anonymous feminist above is crazy. There is nothing similar between abortion and the dealth penalty. Sometimes the baby is guilty but usually it's innocent. In the death penalty, there's great evidence that the convicted is guilty.

Dave dear, you are an utter moron. There are waiting lists years long to adopt babies so major fail there. As for your pathetic attempt at analogy with the death penalty, another major fail, unless you can show me one case where the child of someone convicted of crime is put to death or even jailed in their stead. But do continue to foam at the mouth with your rabid stupidity dear, it makes for good entertainment and we can always get someone in to clean the drool off of your keyboard.

"We tend to see individuals who purposely hurt the most defenseless of us as worthy of our anger and disgust. I do have some empathy for the women I know who have been pushed into abortions. Our society failed them. They failed themselves."

Since this entire discussion stemmed from a post about the moral implications of denying a rape victim the ability to seek an abortion for a child conceived of the rape, I wonder if you include rape victims in your categorization of women who "failed themselves."

anonymous,in that sentence I was speaking directly about the women I know who have had abortions and the 95% or more who abort for reasons that have nothing to do with incest/rape/health. You are still refusing to answer all of my direct questions. If one believes that personhood begins at conception then abortion is no different than infanticide and you have yet to explain why it is. All I'm hearing from the visiting feminists here is a load of baseless assumptions about the character of pro-lifers and emotional arguements. You have no idea how many of these people have adopted or how they are involved in their communities. As spacebunny says, its common knowledge there are long waiting lists to adopt american babies, including special needs babies. Its often easier to adopt foreign babies. As for the death penalty, this is not a one to one comparison by any means. Aborted children have not been found guilty of murder, rape, assault, or any other crime that might merrit punishment. They are guilty of merely existing and for that they get the death penalty without any form of due process. By the way, this is yet another baseless assumption. You dont know that the pro-life people here are also supporters of the death penalty. To my knowledge they haven't made any statements on this subject.

I sense a disturbance in the Farce, like multitudes of wannabes who wished they could write half as well as Scalzi suddenly BAAAAAAWed out their butthurt, & sadly, were not silenced by a sudden jolt of self-awareness.

Good job rewriting the original FAIL post - too bad the rewrites actually make you look like even more of a reality-phobic misogynist.

Love the reference above to "forcible rape" - presumably to distinguish it from all of its wholesome, fun counterparts. Sure is a mystery why women want less & less to do with the GOP any more, alright. Dumb broads just don't know what's best for 'em, amirite guys?

Accusing a satirist of being the rapist he's satirizing? Just another days work for a member of the valiant 101st Keyboarders! As for REAL rape & depravity in action, your readers should Google the armchairsubversive blog to see exactly who the real scummy sex criminals are, in DC & nationwide ... but make sure you bring a jumbo-sized barf bag: it's a very long & very ugly litany indeed.

How very odd: exactly none of the people who argue (with great passion & conviction) that a fetus is a person would ever dream of arguing that an acorn is an oak tree, or an egg is a rooster, or a spore is a mushroom - even though these arguments are all functionally identical.

Such glaring ignorance of basic biology would be funny - if it wasn't for that whole "organized campaign of anonymous terrorism, firebombing medical clinics & murdering doctors" thing.

If you destroyed a pre-rooster egg, your farm will have one less rooster. Assuming it's fertilised and growing, you killed it. You killed a member of the chickeny species. If you destroyed an acorn before it became a tree, well done, you're contributing to deforestation. It's all morally equivalent.

So, ask yourself if you would give me permission to go back in time and zap your mother with my de-baby ray before you were born?

Or if your mother regretted giving you life, and went back to tell herself to abort?

We just happen to be unconcerned about the life of a rooster. Or a tree. Or a mushroom. We quite happily kill all those things for our pleasure.

If they were sentient species', then sure, we'd be against that too.

If I had a rooster egg, because I wanted to start a second chicken farm, and then you came along and stomped it before it hatched, I'd hold you responsible for my loss of a rooster, and make you buy me a fully grown one.

You're right. The arguments are functionally identical. The subject of the argument isn't.

Did a pro-life dude kill a doctor? That is weird. I can understand you being disgusted about it, if so, though I suspect you take too much satisfaction from the rhetoric, for me to really believe you are.

And I can't imagine that it actually happens on a basis frequent enough to be a 'thing'. I'm honestly surprised to think it happened even once. It is a devastating hypocrisy. Although I suppose the balance of lives would favour his defense. Compared to 50 million or so, I doubt the statistics would be compelling for your side of the argument.

And don't expect me to weep over a collection of plaster and wood altars dedicated to killing children. Perhaps future generations would be disgusted that more of us didn't go postal and march armies against the New Aztecs. I can't say I enjoy the moral conflict between Christian non-violence, and having to watch millions of people slaughter their children with smile for the camera. We have to try using reason on the unreasoning, instead.

How very odd: exactly none of the people who argue (with great passion & conviction) that a fetus is a person would ever dream of arguing that an acorn is an oak tree, or an egg is a rooster, or a spore is a mushroom - even though these arguments are all functionally identical.I have to suppose then that squirrels are mass murderers of trees. I suppose that makes you wankers and yankers masters of genocide.Look how these people consider trees and roosters equal with humans(men and women). It's exactly how, in my country, the self-called "animal lovers" (a word-by-word translation) do with the stray dogs (we have a significant problem with these dogs); as a side note, they are a bunch of shameless hypocrites because seldom do you see them caring about other animals other than dogs, because I bet they are not for the most part vegetarians.I say: let's do as ancient Athens did, ostracize them (that is, throw them out of society into wilderness).